Wednesday, March 11, 2015

It may look different in the future, but that's a good thing

Christianity is a dying relic of an ancient past. The Internet is killing it. Science is killing it. Western sophistication is killing it. Right?

Wrong.

In many ways, Christianity is on the rise as never before—worldwide, and in America. Here are the ways we can tell:

1. Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds worldwide.

The research shows Christian numbers rising, not falling worldwide. "Christianity should enjoy a worldwide boom in the coming decades, but the vast majority of believers will be neither white nor European, nor Euro-American,” writes Philip Jenkins of Baylor University, author of The Next Christendom.

In America, this will mean that as white descendants of Europeans fall off a demographic cliff, they will be replaced by the growing Southern Christian and Catholic populations.

2. Nominal Christianity is dead—and that’s a good thing.

Meanwhile, in America, research showing that Christian numbers are tanking is a little misleading. What it really shows is a fall in the number of people who call themselves Christians but have never darkened the door of a Church. We no longer feel we have to dishonestly mark the “Christian” box, and we now feel it's okay to be honest and mark the “atheist” box—but this shows health rather than weakness.

It is an interesting dynamic: In the West, the nominal Christianity that was inherited unthinkingly is disappearing and in the East and South, real Christianity is a rapidly growing grassroots movement. Books like God's Century by Monica Duffy Toft of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and God Is Backby John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge of The Economist are trying to figure out what that will mean.

3. The Church is promoting the sacraments.

But the nominal Catholic rate still causes problems. We know various polls place Mass attendance at various small percentages. What we don’t know is the extent to which they merely show that nominal Catholics still mark “Catholic” on polls.

A good measure of whether Catholics are more than nominal is Eucharistic adoration. To spend time with Jesus Christ is the very definition of a Christian, after all. Adoration is offered at 7,094 U.S. parishes as listed by RealPresence.com. In 2005, that website’s president, Mike Mortimer, estimated that there were 715 perpetual adoration chapels in America. The Vatican now estimates that there are 1,100 perpetual adoration chapels in America.

A movement’s future is only as strong as its next generation, and so for Catholicism to have a future it has to have a youth movement. Catholicism does. Our most recent World Youth Day attracted 3.7 million—one of the 30-year event’s largest gatherings ever.

At home, we see a pro-life force largely led by young American Catholics, which dwarfs almost every other activist movement. Tens of thousands of Catholic young people descend on Washington each January for the March for Life, and you can add to that the young people at the115 smaller marches for life throughout the United States and the nationwide life chain events in October.

6. … and the Catholic youth movements are linked to higher education.

When I went to college, people referred to “the hardcore four” or “thriving five” Catholic colleges faithful to the magisterium. Now I work at a college and we continually hear new stories of schools trying to reclaim their Catholic identity in order to compete. Today, the National Catholic Register’s latest Catholic Identity Guide lists more than 30 schools that are promoting the strength of their Catholic identity.

At the same time, new Catholic centers at state schools are trying to make inroads in hostile environments that dismantle students’ faith: The Seek 2015 conference of FOCUS (The Fellowship of Catholic University Students) attracted nearly 10,000 college students this year.

7. New, young vocations.

Another phenomenon you can’t help but notice in Catholic circles is hidden from official numbers: The new young vocations. We see them at Benedictine College all the time—in our classrooms, in our Abbey, and among our alumni. But because of the huge numbers of elderly priests and nuns, the total numbers of priests and nuns keeps dropping in America.

Research does show that millennials are “even more likely” to consider vocations than the generation before them, and anecdotal evidence shows that there was a Benedict Effect before there was any Francis Effect in vocations, and that priests under 35 represent a sign of hope in the Church.

8. Strong, engaged Bishops.

Complaining about bishops is a pastime as old as the Church itself. It can be done in a helpful way (see the letters of St. Paul in your New Testament) and in an unhelpful way (as in the joke about the part of the bishop-making ceremony where the candidate’s spine is removed).

But the 21st century has seen a huge change in the way American bishops engage the world. It first became noticeable with the candidacy of John Kerry, a radically pro-abortion politician whose nominal Catholicism forced bishops to take a stand. Then came the rise of Obama and the HHS mandate—which every U.S. bishop denounced. Finally, new strong bishops are emerging from what Thomas Peters calls the “Benedict Bishop Bump.”

9. A new interest in Scripture.

Many people predicted when the Da Vinci Code was popular that the long-term effect of the novel’s crazy anti-Scriptural premise would be to increase interest in Scripture. That paradoxical prediction has proven true. In the wake of the Da Vinci Code, a new interest in Scripture can be seen in popular books, television miniseries, and major Hollywood movies.

The bottom line is that if Christianity is true, then we can expect it will continue to rise and not die. If it's not true, then it will certainly die—and the sooner, the better. But since Jesus Christ really did die and rise and leave us the sacraments, don’t expect it to go away any time soon.

Tom Hoopes is writer in residence at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas.

Elia a young man along with his wife and their cute little daughter attend Mass at the SSPX chapel in Rome. If Elia a lay man like me, was a spokesman for the SSPX, Italy, or if I was a spokesman for them ( I am not) then I would have to respond to the growing reports of the SSPX and schism even though there are Catholics at SSPX chapels who accept Vatican Council II.

It's simple for me. I would announce on behalf of the lay SSPX that cardinals Muller and Ladaria, the Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must first set an example for the SSPX. They should affirm Vatican Council II , in agreement with Tradition i.e the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) , the Syllabus of Errors.

Obviously they cannot.

Never ever has Cardinal Muller,Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop Di Noia and Mons.Pozzo affirmed Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity, in agreement with the Feeneyite understanding of the dogma.

Instead they use the Marchetti irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma defined by three Church Councils.This creates a Vatican Council II with a hermeneutic of rupture, a rupture with EENS.It is also a rupture with the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which endorsed Feeneyism.

So the lay-SSPX could ask the CDF to affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma,the SSPX General Chapter Statement version.Otherwise the magisterium is officially denying a dogma and promoting heresy. Official heresy.

Appeal to the CDF. Ask Cardinal Muller.Things to do.

If he says Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma mention that for me (Lionel) LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases of salvation, which are not physically visible in 2015.Humanly speaking they would have to be hypothetical.Angels could see the dead. So they cannot be objective exceptions to all needing faith and baptism in the Catholic Church. They cannot be exceptions to the dogmatic teaching.Humanly it is unknown.

For me Vatican Council II affirms an ecumenism of return.AG 7 and LG 14 says all need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'. All need to convert.

Those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter or those who are in invincible ignorance and are saved would only be known to God. I cannot meet any such person on the street.I cannot say that any particular person will be saved as such.The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic faith with the baptism of water (AG 7, LG 14).

So the bottom line is that I accept Vatican Council II and the dogma on exclusive salvation according to Feeneyism and not Cushingism, while for the CDF it is the opposite.I avoid the Marchetti irrationality the CDF does not.

For me there is no change in the 'authentic magisterium'( as Bishop Bernard Fellay terms it) before and after Vatican Council II. For the present magisterium, there is a rupture.This is heresy.

The CDF cannot accuse me of denying Vatican Council II. It is the CDF which is not affirming Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. For the CDF there are exceptions.Vatican Council II without the false premise does not mention any exceptions. Yet for the CDF there are explicit exceptions.It is as if they are angels at the Vatican. A new doctrine emerged and the CDF approved it.

The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma for the CDF. They are using an irrational premise.People in Heaven the CDF assumes, are visible and known on earth to be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church.This is fantasy.

This cannot be magisterial.It cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit cannot teach error.The Holy Spirit cannot teach that the dead who are now in Heaven are visible to us.No this cannot be true. The Holy Spirit cannot teach that these deceased did not receive the baptism of water and are saved and are physically visible to us in 2015 to be defacto exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.Yet this is the official position of the CDF; of Muller, Ladaria, Di Noia and Pozzo.It's public.

All of them have been associated

at one time with the International

Theological Commission, Vatican (ITC).

In two theological papers of the ITC it is inferred that the dead now in Heaven are visible on earth. So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.They would have to be visible and known in 2015, for them to be exceptions.

An exception must exist to be an exception.Invisible cases cannot be defacto exceptions. This is a given.This is a magisterial factual error available on line for all to read.It was approved by Pope Benedict XVI.

So if I was a spokesman for the lay members of the SSPX , who attend Mass at SSPX chapels, I would ask Cardinal Muller to give up his heretical position on these subjects. Here is the countdown. 1) Vatican Council II ( with the false premise), 2) Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( interpreted with Marchetti's visible-dead-saved premise),3)Nicene Creed 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, which changes to three or more known baptisms without the baptism of water.Since Marchetti indicated that there were visible exceptions to the dogma outside the Church 4)Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257), 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' ( as if we know of a known exception.Again we have Marchetti's error),5) Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus (they infer that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation).

Also other magisterial documents overseen by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger repeat the error from Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani's Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

So there is no change in theology and doctrine for me when I attend the Novus Ordo Mass.Theologically there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II or any Church document for me.Ecclesiology has not changed for me at Mass in Italian.Ecclesiology is exclusivist before and after Vatican Council II. There is no new Revelation in the Catholic Church.

So a lay member of the SSPX, like Elia, can interpret Vatican Council II, the Tradtional Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo Mass, and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, consistently and traditionally.This is also possible for the magisterium in 2015.

So a lay spokesman for the SSPX could ask Cardinal Muller how could the SSPX Mass be considered schismatic? The SSPX is waiting for the cardinal to first affirm Vatican Council II in line with the dogma. You do it first.Then they could respond.

I still believe that the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium of the Church, when they are in accord with Tradition. However Marchetti made an objective error. This has to be recognised and corrected.

Without the Marchetti Inference Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the three Church Councils.There is no new theology related to the Mass. Nor any new doctrine associated with the Novus Ordo.The innovations and novelties had its basis in the 1949 error accepted by the magisterum.

… I just had the absolute worst experience ever during mass, at my Abuela’s funeral no less. I wasn’t going to post about here but I feel I have a duty to warn you all. If you ever happen to find yourself visiting the Tidewater area of Virginia and need to go to mass… just drive right by St. Therese in Chesapeake. Simply make the sign of the cross and keep on driving. Don’t look back. Trust me.

But of course, feel free to completely ignore my advice if you like your tabernacle located near the church office, absolutely love ginormous burlap banners, and simply loathe kneelers. Perhaps you find it charming and personable that the Sign of Peace last twenty minutes long because the priest likes to walk around and shake everyone’s hand. How friendly, right?

Maybe those stodgy, formal processions aren’t your thing either and you like a little a warm up how-we-doing-this-morning routine before you get down to mass-y business.

But if sacrilege is your cup tea, boy oh boy, is this parish just for you – especially if you have complete and utter disrespect for the Eucharist and disdain for those disgusting “traddies” that like to receive on the tongue. I mean gross, right? Yeah, to hell with those people. Lets just be jerks to them at their grandmother’s funeral.

I mean I’ve heard stories about priests refusing to give communion to people kneeling or on the tongue before but have never witnessed it myself. I just had such a hard time believing a priest could be so poorly formed or dismissively casual with the Eucharist.

Woa, wait a minute, Katrina. This is the internet and everyone reading this will know exactly who are talking about.

Good.

What this priest did was totally inexcusable.

Not only did he consecrate a wheat pita but when I went up to receive on the tongue he forcefully tried to pry open my hands to put the Eucharist in my palm. When I remained in front of him with my mouth open, holds folded closed, to receive on the tongue he grabbed my hand and took the Body of Christ, wedged it between my fingers and said, “Just take it. It’s easier this way.”

Easier for what or whom?! There were not even 50 people in that church! How was me receiving on the tongue going to disrupt the communion line? It made absolutely no sense. Just take it, it’s easier this way? And at my grandmother’s funeral is where you decide to make your little anti-trad point?

And while he was busy making a show out of denying me communion on the tongue in front of my family at my dead grandmother’s funeral, he was hap-happily giving out consecrated wheat pita to the rest of my non-Catholic family without a moment of instruction or notice in the program on why they shouldn’t receive. Sacrilege schmacrilege.

So again, if you feel like the Eucharist deserves not a single once of reverence or respect than I can happily suggest you swing by St. Therese in Chesapeake Virginia. Of course if you feel differently, then just say a prayer for this parish but keep on moving along.

Viterbo:Interesting. To teach a 'dogma' of exceptions from dogma, is a bit mad.

Lionel:Exactly the dogma did not mention any exceptions._________________ I never knew Fr Hardon taught 'this'.Lionel:For Fr.John Hardon the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the strict interpretatiion of the dogma. He affirms this in an article which can be read on line. He also over looked this error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257).He was a consultant on the Catechism.____________________ A bit confused about how 'Feenyism' can be used as an example.Lionel:Feeneyism affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma.There are no explicit exceptions.So if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 are not explciit for us in 2015 ( and they are not) then there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyism._______________________

The Church's doctrine on baptism of blood and invincible ignorance were what Feeny was trying to run-over with his personal dogma on salvation.Lionel:That's one version.Another is that Fr.Feeney was saying there is no salvation outside the Church. While Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing were saying there is salvation outside the Church.We now know that Fr.Feeney was correct.1.Since the cardinals in 1949 did not personally know of any person saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).2) Also no magisterial document before 1949 stated that there were explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.They only mention the being saved in invincible ignorance etc and this could include the baptism of water.So there was no magisterial precedent for the cardinals who gave us a new doctrine and rejected the dogma with an inter office letter from the Holy Office in 1949.________________________

At any rate, Bergoglio's usurpation of the satanic beheading of people by muslims because they were deemed to be Christians is an appalling piece of political usury.Lionel:Lionel:Without the premise from 1949, without the irrational inference, without the 'explicit exceptions, Vatican Council II is saying in Ad Gentes 7 that all Muslims need to formally convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. There are also no exceptions to the dogma in Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andradeshttp://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.it/2015/03/up-north.html